Thousand tournaments

Regarding the scoring, I offer another option. Example: 1) 0: 120 1: 100: 2: 0 2) 0: 90 1: 100 2: 100 3) 0: 0 1: 100 2: -100 Average) 0: 70 1: 100 2: 0 Normalized results (average deducted): 1) 0: 47 1: 27 2: -73 2) 0: -7 1: 3 2: 3 3) 0: 0 1: 100 2: -100 Average) 0: 13 1: 43 2: -57 Now the comparison is made between 0: separately, between 1: separately, between 2: separately. One could consider a scoring system where the 3 players at each table get the same number of points (in this example, the sum of each table is 0 rounding error). 1) 0: 34 1: -16 2: -16 2) 0: -20 1: -40 2: 60 3) 0: -13 1: 57 2: -43 These values would be the tournament points. In this case, the importance of the bid would decrease significantly. It does not matter whether to bid 125 or 130. The difference would be only 5 points, but not a large number of percentages. There would also be some "uninteresting" hands. For example, 1 hand bids-wins a contract, and one trick is lost. It is relatively unimportant how many points go to that trick. In terms of percentages, the difference would be 0-100%. The "interesting" hands become important, where you have to decide whether to bid 155 or not. In some ways, it would be most similar to the current 1000. The important thing is not to get the "best result" from the distribution, but to get an above-average "good result" from the distribution.

You don't play yourself :D

I'm glad my suggestions are being responded to :)

Until the tournament is perfect, it would be wise not to take away points from the lamp, it is relatively disorganized at the moment.

As of today, a version is available where, before calculating tournament points, the average score of the table is calculated and subtracted from the user's score (let's call it averaging the score). This way, the player must get the highest possible score, while keeping the score of his tablemates as low as possible: 1) As the winner of the bid, give as few tricks as possible to others 2) Prevent the winner of the bid from playing out the bid The averaged scores can be seen in the tournament table by hovering over a cell in the table.

I had to think of something to improve the tournament scoring. The principle of the Sasku tournament would not change. The best player at each table position should get 100 plus points and the rest less. It's easy with positive points. However, there should be some way to distinguish the players who received minus points from the rest. Maybe so that if there were minus points, then the person with the worst minus points at each table position would get 0 and based on some coefficient, the "better" minus points would get more points than 0. So that if 120 and 140 were offered at the same table position and neither of them played out. The player who received 140 minus points would get 0, but the player who received 120 minus points would get some plus points. And why not give some extra bonus for removing the crawl?

The current scoring system is probably not the most objective and best. There are too big point gaps. A couple of examples. If I am on defense and take the maximum but my opponents at the table have bid better, I get 29 tournament points, for example, and a player in the same position on another table got 80 tournament points with the same points. There is nothing that depends on me here. Another example: I bid the maximum of 120 and take it out. At other tables, my bid was overbid and I was bluffed. I get 50 points and others in the same position got 100 points for bluffing. Now it starts to depend a lot on the bids and play-outs of the other players at the table. If you bid objectively and don't bluff, I can still earn significantly less with higher points when I am on defense than those who took fewer points themselves but my opponent bluffed due to the higher bid. Of course, I don't have anything very smart to offer right now ;)

An idea came to mind: Let's compare the results only with tables where the same position won the bid. Then there would be no need to measure any average. If it happens that this position did not win the bid at any other table, everyone at the table gets 50 points. In a tournament with 9 participants (three tables), this probably happens often, but there are definitely rounds where the same positions win the bid. How does it feel?

I was also especially looking forward to the thousand tournaments..but I'm really disappointed....I don't really understand the distribution of points. I tried to make it clearer for myself. I started to understand something, then they changed it again...this thing is too subtle for me and it's getting more and more complicated..now that I've reached my 120, for example, I have to make sure that I don't give anything to others, etc. because all of that determines the result, etc. Anyway, I think about half of them don't understand how these points were distributed and if it doesn't matter whether you shouted 125 or 145 points, you still get the same amount. Then forgive me for what we're talking about. I apologize if I misunderstood something, but that's how I read it....Juk has 125 euros, Mardi has 145 euros and both have a lot of money..well, it's not like that...

in your example - they got the same score when 125 played his hand better (giving fewer points to opponents). So the average of the board was lower and less was deducted from the result. In today's system, it is not only the audacity of the bid that counts, but also the skill of the out-bet.